3 ms·

If the government is doing it as an end run around the fourth amendment then that should be illegal.

halJordan 3y ago
But they are though? I agree that intrinsic privacy rights should prevent this. But the fact is this data is freely available, it's public information, the individual has released it appropriately. The problem isn't the govt using public data, the problem is that the data is public. You simply cannot have a privacy concern when you've agreed for it to not be private in the first place.
- h-c-c 3y ago
  It's not freely available, it's for sale. And just because private data is for sale does make it public.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    It's private property that happens to be data. The fact it's allowed to be collected and sold to anyone much less the government.
    - nobodyandproud 3y ago
      Which means that private consent in contract for data collection here is meaningless. Similar to how one cannot sign away one’s constitutional rights in a contract.
nerdile 3y ago
Why would it be legal for a person or company to buy this publicly offered information but illegal for the government?
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  The government is bound by the fourth amendment. Regardless, if people cannot have privacy because companies can coerce and buy so much information about them, then that too is a violation that should be illegal. (For example because it's increasingly impractical to live without a smart phone and cell tower connections, or avoid iTags.)
  - lmm 3y ago
    > The government is bound by the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment is a restriction on the government's ability to search or seize - things that a regular private entity is not permitted to do at all, that represent an enormously abusable power. I don't see how buying public information fits into that. > if people cannot have privacy because companies can coerce and buy so much information about them, then that too is a violation that should be illegal. Perhaps. But looking to ban the government from buying that information on the open market is putting the cart before the horse. If the problem is our private information being sold, let's look for a fix for that that would protect us from large companies or wealthy individuals with a grudge, rather than focusing narrowly on the government.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    It is not a violation of the fourth amendment to buy information you’ve granted to parties to sell. Hacking your router and gathering the information that way would be illegal, this is just buying data like a thousand other businesses do.
  - rpdillon 3y ago
    The third-party doctrine is a loophole in the fourth amendment. > The third-party doctrine is a United States legal doctrine that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties—such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and e-mail servers—have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in that information. A lack of privacy protection allows the United States government to obtain information from third parties without a legal warrant and without otherwise complying with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without probable cause and a judicial search warrant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
edgyquant 3y ago
That doesn’t make any sense at all.

But they are though? I agree that intrinsic privacy rights should prevent this. But the fact is this data is freely available, it's public information, the individual has released it appropriately. The problem isn't the govt using public data, the problem is that the data is public. You simply cannot have a privacy concern when you've agreed for it to not be private in the first place.

h-c-c 3y ago
It's not freely available, it's for sale. And just because private data is for sale does make it public.
- pixl97 3y ago
  It's private property that happens to be data. The fact it's allowed to be collected and sold to anyone much less the government.
  - nobodyandproud 3y ago
    Which means that private consent in contract for data collection here is meaningless. Similar to how one cannot sign away one’s constitutional rights in a contract.

nerdile 3y ago

Why would it be legal for a person or company to buy this publicly offered information but illegal for the government?

paulryanrogers 3y ago
The government is bound by the fourth amendment. Regardless, if people cannot have privacy because companies can coerce and buy so much information about them, then that too is a violation that should be illegal. (For example because it's increasingly impractical to live without a smart phone and cell tower connections, or avoid iTags.)
- lmm 3y ago
  > The government is bound by the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment is a restriction on the government's ability to search or seize - things that a regular private entity is not permitted to do at all, that represent an enormously abusable power. I don't see how buying public information fits into that. > if people cannot have privacy because companies can coerce and buy so much information about them, then that too is a violation that should be illegal. Perhaps. But looking to ban the government from buying that information on the open market is putting the cart before the horse. If the problem is our private information being sold, let's look for a fix for that that would protect us from large companies or wealthy individuals with a grudge, rather than focusing narrowly on the government.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  It is not a violation of the fourth amendment to buy information you’ve granted to parties to sell. Hacking your router and gathering the information that way would be illegal, this is just buying data like a thousand other businesses do.
- rpdillon 3y ago
  The third-party doctrine is a loophole in the fourth amendment. > The third-party doctrine is a United States legal doctrine that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties—such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and e-mail servers—have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in that information. A lack of privacy protection allows the United States government to obtain information from third parties without a legal warrant and without otherwise complying with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without probable cause and a judicial search warrant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

edgyquant 3y ago

That doesn’t make any sense at all.